Lies, Deceptions and Doublespeak

"Therapeutic cloning"

The term "therapeutic cloning" is an example of "newspeak,"
the art defined in George Orwell's 1984 as
obscuring or reversing the truth through the manipulation of
words. The term "therapeutic cloning" was first
popularized by the British government as a means of
reassuring the public that they would be protected from
clones walking the streets by a ban on "reproductive
cloning," while experimental "therapeutic" cloning could
proceed.

But exactly for whom is this scientific research
"therapeutic?" Not for the cloned human embryo. Not for the
donor of the genes that are cloned. Not for anyone. No, the
word "therapeutic" is simply being attached to this
dead-end cloning to suggest that this research has some
imminent medical value. If fact, any potential therapies
that may be developed are at this stage purely hypothetical.

"Fake cloning ban"

A law proposed by eugenicists and biotech firms which would
require all human clones to be destroyed before a certain
stage of development. Fake cloning bans specifically
guarantee a right to clone provided the clone is not allowed
to ever walk the streets. Furthermore, many fake
cloning bans leave room for implanting a genetically-altered
embryo because it is no longer a perfect copy of the
genotype upon which it is based, and is therefore not
technically a clone.

Eugenicists like to support fake cloning bans in order to
calm public concerns about cloning. In fact, these
laws actually guarantee the eugenicists a right to perfect
the technique of inserting genes, including altered genes,
into a human cell that is then triggered to form a human
embryo. Perfection of this technique is critical to
the long-range goal of creating genetically modified human
beings.

"Somatic
cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)"

A fancy way of describing the technology
used to clone Dolly the sheep, invented to avoid the word
"cloning" for fear that the common person may object to the
cloning of human embryos for destructive experiments in
embryology and human engineering. More
doublespeak to distract the public from what is really going on in
the laboratories of eugenicists, transhumanists, and
atheists who deny that any innate dignity attaches to human
life. If all life is meaningless, including
human life, why shouldn't they have as much right to create
and destroy human embryos as they do mouse embryos?
This quite rational opinion, if you accept their premise, is
also why they justify deceiving the "ignorant" public, which
is still deeply infected with "irrational" religious beliefs.

Okay, they don't really word it that
way. Such wording violates the rules of
doublespeak,
which require that the plain facts must be obscured or
worded in ways that imply the opposite of the truth.

However it is worded, advocates of destructive embryo
experiments are raising the argument that destroying little
human lives is worth it, because of all the potential cures
that may come from this "little" moral lapse.

But here are the facts:

Experiments and therapies using stem cells drawn
from adult tissue have proven to be extremely
successful. Two key advantages of using adult stem
cells are (a) you have no tissue rejection issues when
the stem cells are from the patient being treated, and
(b) the mature stem cells are easier to control—they
do what you expect them to do.

Experiments using human embryonic stem cells have not
been successful because of (a) tissue rejection issues and (b)
the tendency for embryonic stem cells to want to develop
into a complete embryo with all tissue types, not just the
one needed for a particular cure.

It is possible to do experiments with animal
embryonic stem cells to determine possible therapies,
but eugenicists want to skip this step because they want
to set the precedent that human life in the embryonic
stage can be treated like disposable tissue.

There is not a single "potential cure" from human embryo
farming that cannot be pursued with equal or greater
likelihood of success using stem cells from adults or
umbilical cord blood.

There is not a single pivotal line of research in
the area of understanding human embryos that cannot be
pursued using animal embryos. After all, if we are
99.9% identical to apes, why can't we develop new
treatments with 99.9% accuracy on ape embryos?

The hype about potential cures from embryo research
is just a red herring to
distract us from putting meaningful limitations
on human embryo research.

Eugenicists and transhumanists are ready to embrace
a ban on "reproductive cloning," as long as we guarantee
a right to clone-to-kill experiments. That exception is
all they need perfect their laboratory skills to the
point where they can alter human embryos into "better
human life forms."

The real issue at stake is whether or not
scientists and entrepreneurs should have the right to wrest
the human genome from "blind evolutionary forces" so they can
"intelligently design" humanity's biological
future according to their own visions of what humanity
should be. If they can make money from government
grants and patents on human biology, all the better.

Change the Website Language:

This public education effort is sponsored by the Elliot
Institute as part of its Coalition to Regulate Human Engineering and Human-Animal
Crossbreeding project.